H. Henry Meeter on the Bible and politics in the Calvinist worldview (3)

By now, those following carefully our presentation of material from Dr. H. Henry Meeter on “The Bible and Politics” will realize that, given the “sides” often portrayed in contemporary discussions of “natural law” and “two kingdoms,” Dr. Meeter was not what some call a “theonomist” or a “Christian Reconstructionist.” Neither was he a “religious secularist,” like those who insist that the Bible belongs in the church, while unaided reason and natural law govern everything else. But as a classic Calvinist, he firmly believed the Bible is related to politics . . . and education, and more.

How the Bible relates to these areas of Christian cultural activity can initially be expressed this way: the Bible supplies principles that guide and govern Christian cultural activity in the world.

So that’s where we pick up his discussion.

Where in the Bible are these principles to be found? Some think these principles are only to be found in isolated texts of the Bible. And if they are not very successful in finding suitable texts, they soon come to the conclusion that the Bible must not have much to say about politics. The Calvinist believes that the biblical basis for his political or his theological or his social views is not to be found in mere isolated texts. He rather discovers these principles in the rule of faith that runs through the whole of Scripture and manifests itself in a variety of ways, also at times in special texts, such as, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,” or “By me kings reign” (Rom. 13:1; Prov. 8:15). But these principles are not at all confined to such special texts.

These principles deal not only with such very general matters like the sovereignty of God and the duty of obedience to governments, but also with many other political problems, such as the relation of the individual to the group, the relation of churches and other ogranizations in society to the state, the limits of governmental power, and the rights of individuals. Calvin in developing his political views made much of such biblical principles as justice, equity, and the well being of the people.

The Calvinist insists that the principles of God’s Word are valid not only for himself but for all citizens. Since God is to be owned as Sovereign by everyone, whether he so wishes or not, so also the Bible should be the determining rule for all. But especially for himself, the Christian, according to the Calvinist, must in politics live by these principles. He declares that not only with his soul for eternity, but as well in matters that concern his body in time, he belongs to his faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Him, therefore, he must obey in all walks of life.

The great value of adopting the Bible as his unconditional positive rule of faith and life, also for political matters, will become increasingly clear as we study the various aspects of Calvinistic political theory.

This ends our extensive citation of Dr. Meeter’s thoughts on this matter of “The Bible and Politics.”

Notice carefully what Meeter has not said. Several who defend modern religious secularism (religion, the Bible, and Christianity belong in the church) mistakenly allege that their critics must surely hold to the underlined words in bold in the following statement: “The Bible alone is the source of every principle for Christian political activity.” Neither Dr. Meeter, nor Abraham Kuyper, nor John Calvin, nor modern defenders of whole life Calvinism have defended that position.

Rather, one of the most fundamental disagreements lies in the two claims being defended by some modern religious secularists, that: (1) the principles of the Bible are authoritative only for Christians, and (2) the Bible says nothing authoritative for Christian communal cultural obedience in the world today.

One feature of this disagreement involves the following binary thinking: either the Bible alone is the guide for Christian communal obedience beyond the church, or the Bible says nothing for Christian communal obedience beyond the church. The error of this binary thinking is this: if we disagree with the second clause, it is alleged that we must agree with the first clause. If we disagree with the first clause, we must necessarily agree with the second clause. The truth, however, is this: as Dr. Meeter has explained it, neither the first clause nor the second clause is valid. Classic whole life Calvinism has always championed a third way!

But there’s more meat in Meeter! Next time we’ll look at the relationship between the Bible and “the book of nature.”

91 Responses

NDK, actually, one of the disagreements basic to this debate is whether critics of 2k actually understand what they are claiming in their positive views about “Christian cultural obedience.” For instance, when Meeter claims:

“These principles deal not only with such very general matters like the sovereignty of God and the duty of obedience to governments, but also with many other political problems, such as the relation of the individual to the group, the relation of churches and other ogranizations in society to the state, the limits of governmental power, and the rights of individuals. Calvin in developing his political views made much of such biblical principles as justice, equity, and the well being of the people.

“The Calvinist insists that the principles of God’s Word are valid not only for himself but for all citizens. Since God is to be owned as Sovereign by everyone, whether he so wishes or not, so also the Bible should be the determining rule for all. But especially for himself, the Christian, according to the Calvinist, must in politics live by these principles. He declares that not only with his soul for eternity, but as well in matters that concern his body in time, he belongs to his faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Him, therefore, he must obey in all walks of life.”

Meeter is claiming a whole lot more than a few biblical texts. He is claiming that an entire worldview (that dreaded Hegelian word) is required of anyone who would take the name Christian (or at least Calvinist). And where is the room here for Christian liberty? Where is the room for a Christian to approach politics differently?

Meeter may disavow theonomy, but he actually expands the power of the Bible well beyond what theonomists claim. In other words, there is no restraint here. The Biblical worldview — not merely the text of the Bible — binds everyone who would follow Jesus.

It’s inspiring and it is comprehensive. But I actually don’t think it’s biblical because it doesn’t do justice to Paul on Christian freedom, nor does it do justice to Reformed hermeneutics, as in letting clear passages interpret obscure ones.

I’d like to respond with two distinct “threads,” which I hope can be kept distinct in further conversation.

Thread 1:

What precise wording in Meeter do you find objectionable? That “[the principles of God’s Word] deal with many political problems”? That “the principles of God’s Word are valid for all citizens”? That “the Christian must in politics live by these [biblical] principles”?

Additionally, would you argue that the biblical worldview does not bind everyone who would follow Jesus?

Thread 2:

Repeatedly the issue is being cast in terms of “binding versus liberty.” In an important sense, that formulation is exactly right—since the issue does hinge on the scope of the authority of special revelation, the Bible.

For whole life Calvinists, the whole life authority of Scripture is not a limitation of, or impediment to, Christian liberty properly understood. Rather, for the mature people of God, whole life obedience itself is seen not as “binding,” but as “liberating.” They ask, in community, how can we live most completely, most fully, in the world, guided by the principles of God’s Word, in a communal style that reflects and witnesses to the power of the gospel operative in all of human living?

There are a number of steps involved in coming up with the idea of a Christian worldview.First, there is the Kantian assumption that we impose order (here, principles) in order to structure our reality; there is no “out there” (natural law) structure. Then, certain scriptures are abstacted into principles. Next, those principles are deemed to have a certain scope of application. Then those principles are applied to come up with what is alleged to be the Christian position, and anyone not coming up with those same applications is deemed to be outside the camp.

Obviously there’s a lot there to unpack, but I’ll just pick out a couple things. The Kuyperian concept of worldview was really quite dependent on developments in philosophy and, as such, could not have been the perspective of pre-Kantian thinkers. So it’s a relatively recent way of thinking which is alien to most of the history of Christianity.

But, no doubt, the worldviewist does have lenses on, and it’s interesting to note what he sees. Today what he sees as fighting issues are pretty much the same ones that Catholics and fundamentalists see, so I’m wondering if it really produces what it is alleged to produce. It sees abortion and gays, for example. But, to pick out one thing, it really sees very little in warfare. Today we are engaged in a war in whch there is a kill list for certain people in another country. We don’t know who is on the kill list, and we don’t ask. Yet we assassinate these people with our military in another country and, along with that, kill innocents and disrupt the lives of other innocents. The point here is not to debate this particular point, but to wonder what it is about the worldview lenses that see some things and not others. Need a new prescription, maybe?

Let’s agree, for now, that the term “worldview” is problematic. Let’s scrap it, for now.

Let’s agree, as well, that the issues selected for illustrative purposes tend to be specifically hot-button issues currently debated among some Christians in America. Those issues, and their being selected for illustration, have never been the real focus or problem in this discussion. But everybody participating in this discussion already knows that—or should.

So let’s pick issues raised in your response. Does the biblical teaching about human persons being created as the Image of God have any normative bearing on, or normative relevance to, the activity of Christians in practicing warfare? Or the activity of Christians in the practices of environmental stewardship?

I’m not asking if other sources of normative guidance exist with regard to these issues. I’m not asking about the applicability of one or another claim by those advocating the Christian worldview. My question is very targeted and narrow: I’m asking about the scope or range or extent of the applicability of the Bible’s teachings about “x” for Christian cultural activity—where “x” in this case is “human persons being created as the Image of God.”

NDK, what I hear is that the Kuyperian has a treasure chest full of gold, and non-Kuyperians are flat broke. So it seems fair enough for me to ask the Kuyperian to actually open up the treasure chest and show me what’s in there. We are commenting under a book about a Kuyperian Calvinist position with lofty claims. I want to see the treasure.

“What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? A country where people go to the office, launch a few kill shots (from pilotless drones) and get home in time for dinner?

“A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to kill human beings on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?” (“What the U.S. risks by relying on drones,” Kurt Volker, The Washington Post, Oct. 26).

A country also where its president makes the final choice for his faceless killers to rub out their targets.

Again, I realize that an in-depth consideration of this is beyond the scope of what we can do here. Meanwhile, the non-Calvinist author had these thoughts. Do they resonate? Likely they do, but they didn’t come from a neo-Cals, whose lenses don’t seem to see this kind of thing. More likely they came from a man who, by natural means, has seen something on a profoundly ethical level. So maybe the natural man also has a treasure of analytical resources.

Rather, as people like Klaas Schilder and Cornelius Van Til have shown us, Christians and non-Christians share the structure of this created world, but differ in their orientation/direction for using the creation. Recall Schilder’s analogy of the marble quarry: both go to the same marble pit, quarry the same marble using the same quarrying techniques—but with his quarried marble the one returns to build a dance hall, the other, a cathedral. (Let’s honor the nature and limits of analogy, please!)

The claims of the book about “the basic ideas of Calvinism” arise from this singular conviction: Calvinism is the most coherently and comprehensively integrated system of doctrine and life. In what way(s) do you disagree with this conviction?

“Calvinism is the most coherently and comprehensively integrated system of doctrine and life. In what way(s) do you disagree with this conviction?.”

So that’s a question about coherence, comprehensiveness, integration, doctrine, and life, involving all possible systems. But, like Mark, you want me to rebut what has not been established. But what if pantheism is shown to be a comprehensive & integrated system of doctrine and life? An articulate pantheist could be pretty persuasive along those lines. Then where are we?

This is not a “gotcha” question, but an attempt to clarify where precisely the disagreement(s) may lie. Are you not convinced, then, that Calvinism is the most coherently and comprehensively integrated system of doctrine and life?

NDK, I am a Calvinist. But, given the question as you phrased it, I’m serious that pantheism might be more so. So maybe coherence, comprehensiveness, etc. isn’t the best test. Maybe the wrong question is being asked.

Anyway, Calvin himself had two categories – heavenly knowledge and earthly knowledge. The unbeliever can’t pull himself up by his bootstraps to attain heavenly knowledge, but is admirably competent in the realm of earthly knowledge. Pantheism doesn’t have that kind of dualism because it merges the two, so it might be superior as an answer to the exact question you asked.

This desire for intellectual comprehensiveness, wholeness, etc., is a bit too Stoic for my taste. I prefer the focus of 1 John over the “agreement of one’s whole life” championed in Stoic ethics. Just me, maybe.

GAS, as I was reading Oliphant’s recent book on apologetics that included SK, I also thought of the paralell between “The System” (Hegelianism) he confronted and today’s System – Christian Worldview. The bit about SK breathlessly waiting and hoping for completion of The System so he could bow down before it is a good read. When everyone agrees that Christianity is a system, important things get lost and consensus becomes confused with legitimate dogma.

NDK, I object to Meeter’s waving of a wand over Scripture. I don’t know about you, but exegetical and expositional preaching is to be preferred to mediational or doctrinal sermons. I want to see something from the text of Scripture. All Meeter does is say it is obvious what the Bible teaches.

This has a lot to do with liberty. Until he shows me, his is just one man’s opinion about what the Bible teaches.

Fair enough, you want to see something from the text of Scripture. You’re looking for specific biblical interpretation and application that would validate the claim that the principles of Scripture guide Christian living in the world.

Would the OPC decision relating to the issue of women in the military and in combat qualify as a valid illustration of this claim?

NDK, the OPC’s report on women in the military illustrates precisely what is wrong with using the Bible as a lens for all of life. First, it was by no means a unanimously accepted report. In other words, people read the Bible differently, even those who are Calvinists. Second, it was motivated first by a response to the Clinton administration, with Scripture being used to baptize opposition to Clinton’s policies regarding the U.S. military.

mikelmann, that is a good line by SK. Of course he was reacting to what the Danish Lutheran Church had become due to their systems.

I’m befuddled by all the machinations when the simple principle of “love your neighbor as you love yourself” should be the ground from which all cultural activity begins. Not that the principle hasn’t ever been contorted, it has. Social gospelers and liberals have twisted the principle out from it’s true meaning. When the principle is employed to initiate coercion you know you’ve lost it’s true meaning. Whenever the system takes precedent over the individual you’ve lost the principle. It’s the original sin, wanting to be as God.

Let me respond to your second point first: unless the motivations underlying the official decisions of bodies—civil or ecclesiastical courts—are made explicit in the text of their decisions, they remain matters of conjecture, anecdote, and impression. Moreover, it seems at least unflattering, if not uncharitable, to allege that in its decision, your denomination’s highest assembly was merely using Scripture to baptize opposition to Clinton’s policies.

Now, on to your first point. By your standard, because people (including Calvinists) read the Bible differently, no application of the Bible to matters of disagreement ought to be made. By your standard, the Dutch churches speaking out officially against National Socialism in the 1930s was wrong. By your standard, the American churches speaking out against slavery in the 1800s was wrong. By your standard, no church would ever make a declaration about divorce and remarriage, or about just warfare, or about any issue that occasions different readings of the Bible.

“The Muslim insists that the principles of God’s Word are valid not only for himself but for all citizens. Since God is to be owned as Sovereign by everyone, whether he so wishes or not, so also the Koran should be the determining rule for all.”

Meeter is overly simplistic. As a pastor you have a member who is a union employee and another member who is in management. The State Legislature is considering legislation that will make it harder for unions to organize and collect union dues. What is the neat Calvinist solution to this problem that will allow the pastor to care for both of his members?

NGH – “By your standard, the Dutch churches speaking out officially against National Socialism in the 1930s was wrong. By your standard, the American churches speaking out against slavery in the 1800s was wrong. By your standard, no church would ever make a declaration about divorce and remarriage, or about just warfare, or about any issue that occasions different readings of the Bible.”

What is the confessional case for a church “speaking out” against National Socialism or slavery? “Speaking out” how? To who?

If you want to talk about churches disciplining members who are committing sinful acts under the guise of National Socialism or as a slaveholder I can see that, but generic “speaking out”?

Substitute “global warming” or “alcohol: for “National Socialism” and “slavery” and how enthusiastic are you?

My church excommunicated a woman over a divorce this morning. No declaration to the world at large about divorce proceeded it or was necessary.

NDK, by “my” standard? I keep telling you to read Machen (beyond a couple essays about Christian schools). He did tell the church not to speak out about prohibition and was following a line of Presbyterianism that also said the church should not speak out against slavery. The reason is that in both cases the Bible did not condemn the alleged evils at issue. I know that is shocking to some. But if you look at the debates over slavery, most historians acknowledge that the Southerners got the better of the argument over interpreting Scripture. They also show that the North set into motion an appeal to the spirit (as opposed to the letter) of Scripture that became the hermeneutic of the Social Gospel.

So if you are starting from the position that the church must speak to all sorts of issues, you are going to go to the Bible to find texts that will support your view. You’ll also be very frustrated by all those encounters between Christ or his apostles with all sorts of social evils and their never speaking out.

This is the thing: you are the one who insists that everything must be viewed through the lens of Scripture but then when it comes to what the Bible actually teaches you gloss it to find what you want. Sorry, but that’s not very conservative or Reformed.

You have unwittingly hit upon an essential feature of any religion that might claim the loyalty of its adherents. Why in the world would a totalitarian (in the sense of whole life) Islam and a parttime Christianity ever be mortal enemies? The essential competition among the true religion and all other false religions entails their respective claims to such whole life coherence and comprehensiveness. Throughout history, Christianity has been viewed as a mortal threat precisely because of its claims to full-time practice and allegiance.

NDK – I didn’t personally view Jerry Falwell as a mortal threat, more of a mortal annoyance. The reason Christianity is feared by despots is not because of it’s political program. The reason it is feared is because those with ultimate allegiance to Christ will not declare ultimate allegiance to Caesar. Those who are all about this world will not tolerate those who say this world is not their home.

I realize that several matters are being merged here—matters of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and history.

Re ecclesiology: I would defend primarily (though not exclusively) the church’s speaking to its own members about matters of doctrine and life that may be under attack, an attack that threatens the conscience-driven practice of the Christian faith in the world. This was what occurred in the 1930s in The Netherlands. By that standard, Machen’s advice about prohibition was wise, but cannot likely be extended to claim that he would have given similar advice regarding slavery, though admittedly such advice was given by some Presbyterians in the 1800s. Moreover, the church speaking to its own members was the case in the 1930s Dutch Reformed context, since the decision stipulated that membership in the National Socialist Movement was incompatible with membership in Christ’s church.

I’ve never defended the position—because I don’t believe it—that the church must speak to all sorts of issues. Such ventriloquism on your part won’t work this time. Again.

Re hermeneutics: What is it about Calvin’s insistence that “everything must be viewed through the lens of Scripture” that you don’t agree with? How do you think my use of the metaphor differs from his?

I’m trying to understand this hermeneutic that is so central to religious secularism, in the context of what I thought I knew of the identity of, say, the OPC. The international tradition of Reformed theological ethics has been guided by the work of, among others, people like Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Danaeus, Perkins, Ames (Cases of Conscience), Baxter, and the like, all of whom have appealed to Scripture (especially the Decalogue) for crafting a biblical analysis of, and response to, matters like usury, warfare, vocations, divorce, and more. In addition, the history of Protestant ethics and church life includes careful attention to casuistry.

Pardon me, but I thought I was talking about Christianity. Specifically, I had written: “Throughout history, Christianity has been viewed as a mortal threat precisely because of its claims to full-time practice and allegiance.”

NDK – But you are not advocating mere “Christianity” here. You are advocating a narrow sliver of Christianity which arose in a specific time and place (19th & 20th century Netherlands & Dutch enclaves in America). Just how Biblical & confessional this sliver is is what we are arguing about. You guys are shocked, SHOCKED! That 2k chalelnges your interpretations, but we believe we are representing a more confessional & biblical approach.

And my comment was not drive-by. I am parked and have come into the building.

Since when has defending Christianity in terms of its full-time practice and allegiance become defending a narrow sliver of Christianity? Since when has defending the practice in the world of one’s Christian identity become defending a narrow sliver of Christianity?

I know you dislike what you understand by neo-Calvinism. I get that. Loud and clear.

Fine. Let’s back it off, and talk about the biblical and confessional (note the order, by way of contrast) understanding of living out one’s Christian identity in the world. And put this together with my comment to “dgh” as follows: “The international tradition of Reformed theological ethics has been guided by the work of, among others, people like Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Danaeus, Perkins, Ames (Cases of Conscience), Baxter, and the like, all of whom have appealed to Scripture (especially the Decalogue) for crafting a biblical analysis of, and response to, matters like usury, warfare, vocations, divorce, and more. In addition, the history of Protestant ethics and church life includes careful attention to casuistry.”

Lodge membership = participating in a false religion, so yes, I agree with that. I am actually teaching Sunday School on the CRC/RCA split next Sunday so your question is timely!

I think a lot of our debate comes down to what should be left to individual conscience (Christian Liberty) vs. what the church should dictate/meddle in. Individual Christians can have opinions about all kinds of things that I may agree or disagree with. They can be politically active about all kinds of things. When it is my pastor or elders in their roles as pastor or elder who are trying to dictate my beliefs or actvism (or lack thereof), then I take issue with that. If it’s not clearly spelled out in our Confessions then they need to back off.

NDK, there you go again, giving with one hand and taking it away as soon as you offer. The Bible speaks to everything or must be the lens through which everything is interpreted. That gives you warrant to speak on matters beyond the church parking lot. But then you want to keep the Bible in the parking lot by claiming that you don’t think the church should speak on everything. If the church has the truth of the word, with a perspective on everything, why would you ever want to restrict. And you had the audacity to claim that I was limiting the Bible and Christ’s Lordship. You limit it too. But you are simply arbitrary about it. The Bible has implications for everything, the Christian religion being that “comprehensive” religion you believe it to be. But then you won’t talk about the Bible’s implications for everything. Why? Who knows? Seems like it’s a matter for NDK. At least 2k says that the Bible is limited in what it reveals — hence we have chapters in the confessions on God, man, Christ, salvation, the church and not on the curriculum of Christian schools.

As for the international body of Reformed ethics, Calvin et al may have written on all those things but the churches never confessed on all those things. Plus, theologians don’t write on everything the way they used to. Or have I missed your books on usury, warfare, marriage, and economics?

If R2K kills the elephant those 12 guys at Old Life will have had more of an impact than the apostles! Maybe what you meant is R2K will kill the gnat. I suspect both the elephant and the gnat will be just fine.

In order to convince me that R2K will kill the elephant you first have to convince me of what it is Neocalvinism is actually doing that is having a wide impact. Are you worried that Sioux County will stop voting 90% Republican (after Steve King assures the Dutch citizens that Romney’s religion is nothing to worry about)? The Elephant seems to be more concerned about promoting health & wealth and having a rocking praise band on Sunday morning.

The appearance of giving and taking exists only in a binary world. It’s not really as confusing as you make it appear. Surely the pulpit can declare the evils of gambling without thereby obligating the next GA to publish a statement against casinos that are popping up all over the country. Or not?

And, even though the church does not officially speak regarding casinos, surely such restraint does not logically compel the church never to speak regarding anything. Or does it?

You seem to be suggesting that if the pulpit addresses God’s Word to situation “x,” then assemblies can/may/must do the same, or else commit egregious inconsistency. But that doesn’t follow at all.

The Bible has implications (a.k.a. principles) regarding everything, as we learn from the following:

1 Cor. 10.31: “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

Col. 3.17: “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”

Col. 3.23-24: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward.”

1 Tim. 4.4-5: “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”

2 Tim. 3.16-17: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

These biblical principles, as comprehensive as life itself, must be proclaimed by the pulpit for Christian living in the world.

But that does not yet require that the church adopt official declarations regarding every possible application of every biblical principle.

So, you see, the “set” of pulpit-taught biblical principles and their application can be, and is, much larger than the “set” of official ecclesiastical declarations. Arbitrary? That depends on the standard used for issuing official ecclesiastical declarations.

As for books on usury, warfare, marriage, etc., you may have missed reading this recent publication, whose pregnant title is The Christian Family—a translation of Herman Bavinck’s helpful work.

NDK, and you just made the world safe for Christian counseling. You still don’t seem to grasp the importance of Christian liberty, something you’d know if you ever studied Machen and the Presbyterian controversies or the Reformation. In the latter case, you’d know that the Reformers were suspicious of the doctrines and opinions of men. In which case, it is one thing to say the Bible is profitable for all sorts of reflection and then have a minister of the word bind someone’s conscience by declaring Christian education a necessary consequence of the Bible’s sufficiency or some teaching about parental duties. The Old School Presbyterians, who learned it from the Scots, who learned it from Calvin, were very wary of speaking beyond what the Bible teaches. Good and necessary consequences are required for ministers to speak on matters of life (which won’t be all of life). Clever reflections about where society is headed or what will happen if the Christians don’t respond to X just doesn’t cut it — you need a “thus saith the Lord.”

I’m surprised you don’t understand that. 2k really does try to protect Scripture and uphold Christ’s lordship so that someone who claims divine favor can’t railroad their ideas over the faithful. Surely you remember the dangers of the pope. Or was the idea to replace one universal bishop who speaks about everything with hundreds of ministers who do the same?

NDK -“The Bible has implications (a.k.a. principles) regarding everything, as we learn from the following:”

The funny thing, though, is that mature Christian people often arrive at conclusions are 180 degrees apart on lots of issues, yet they can both be members in good standing of the same church and commune together. You need to ponder that.

I buy a Powerball ticket when the prize gets big. It’s $2. Am I subject to church discipline? What is the confessional case against gambling? How about the office NCAA pool? People in Bondurant, Iowa recently won $90 million after tax. Their church was against gambling but took their money to retire the mortgage.

Okay, I think we’ve got it by now . . . you and your friends dislike Christian education. Viscerally. Fine. We’ve not mentioned that for quite some time now, and won’t talk about that anymore. I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience with it somewhere along the line.

I used the example of gambling. Wanna try that one? Ala WLC 142? I used the example of the incompatibility between identifying with National Socialism and identifying with Jesus Christ. Care to try that one?

Better yet, please identify for me one moral issue in contemporary society involving Christian living outside the church about which you believe the pulpit should speak, text permitting, and Christians should bear distinctive witness? If you have a Bible text/passage, or a particular Commandment to go with it, so much the better.

NDK, once again for all of your attractions to comprehensiveness, your own version comes up remarkably thin, as in a comprehensive Christianity reduces to morality? No 2ker (despite your innuendos to the contrary) says God’s law is not binding on Christians, either in the church building, church parking lot, or even in the home. (Whether a Christian who votes for a candidate who favors state lotteries makes the believer guilty of gambling is a very complicated issue, one that neo-Cals generally rush over to condemn 2kers for denying God’s law.) What 2kers dispute is the neo-Cal claim to comprehensiveness, as in Christianity must reach to all areas of life because (or so that) the Bible does also. Christian education proves to be a good test case. It teaches math, science, art. There you have the makings for some kind of comprehensiveness. So does the Bible reveal aesthetics? Can we attach a thus saith the Lord to beauty?

No, no, some NL2Kers are disputing far more than just the claim that the Bible is normative for all of Christian living. Far more. Though some may wish to reduce the dispute to the comprehensiveness of Scripture’s authority for whole life Christian cultural obedience, the real dispute lies deeper.

Since, as you say, God’s law is binding on Christians in all of life, and since the Decalogue is but a republication of natural law, then Christians may point unbelievers to these commandments of God (in terms of their equity, pith, and substance) as norm for public life? Yes?

NDK, Sure, Christians may invoke God’s commandments for public life. And the rest of Americans may decide that the Christians are theocratic. As I say, your call. It’s a free country.

But always with the bluster and no substance. “The real issue lies deeper.” You care to back that up? Where has any 2ker abandoned the confessions of the Reformed churches the way that the churches influenced most by Kuyper did? Be honest, now. It’s one of God’s commandments.

If I understand snide sarcasm (and I don’t profess to catch it always), I understand you to be saying: No, Christians may not point unbelievers to these commandments of God as norm for public life, for then they would be theocratic.

If I’ve understood that correctly, then you’ve helped identify the deeper issue, by illustrating it. Any Christian appeal to the principles embedded in God’s law as norm for public life is caricatured and dismissed as theocratic. So, then, when the Christian Medical and Dental Association formulates a position (here) regarding embryonic stem cell research that appeals to, among other arguments, the principles of special revelation relating to human beings being created in God’s image and to similar such positive norms, that argument is dismissed as theocratic, and therefore deserving of sarcastic ridicule.

NDK, the sarcasm comes from your making a mountain out of a molehill (and with such little acquaintance with American Presbyterianism). And it also comes from your habit of reading me uncharitably while thinking you are as clear as a good chardonnay. I did not say that an attempt to use the Bible in public life was theocratic. I said that “the rest of Americans” could conclude that such an appeal was theocratic (which is precisely what is happening). This is not a very good strategy if you want to withstand certain trends in the culture. But if you think you have no other strategy than to appeal to the Bible, have at it.

But the older theologians from whom you seem to draw inspiration had other ways of rolling back trends, and it came from not applying the Bible woodenly to public life.

Perhaps questioning whether NL2K advocates believe Christians may appeal to biblical principles in the public square (civil kingdom), as part of their argumentation and witness, may appear to some to be making a mountain out of a molehill. But when we have been told that in a certain sense, Scripture is not the norm for life in the civil kingdom (and in this context of addressing issues in the civil kingdom, believers were not being distinguished from unbelievers), then I think we’re not dealing with molehills. For if the Bible (God’s law) is silent beyond the church regarding issues in the civil kingdom, it remains silent within the church regarding those same issues as well.

We fully agree that Christians should not apply the Bible woodenly to public life.

The deeper point at issue is whether Christians may ever apply the Bible to issues arising within the civil kingdom. The older theologians who inspire me said, without hesitation or equivocation: “Yes.”

So, then, why should we not praise the aforementioned statement of the Christian Medical and Dental Association, as a Christian response to the evil of embryonic stem cell research?

And if I as a Christian physician should praise that statement as a Christian response to this evil, then why should a preacher not praise it as well, for the same reason(s)? (We’re not suggesting that the preacher should mandate it, require it, or bind anyone’s conscience to it. Simply applaud it as an example of proper Christian application of Scripture to living in the world today.)

NDK, you’re kidding, right? If we appeal to the Bible inside the church and we establish presbyterial forms of church government, are you implying that all governments at all times must be presbyterial? Are you also suggesting that all people must submit to church elders?

“For if the Bible (God’s law) is silent beyond the church regarding issues in the civil kingdom, it remains silent within the church regarding those same issues as well.”

Why?

The Bible says lots of things about the Church and how Christians should act without applying them to society at large.

I don’t have a big problem with what the CMDA is doing with one qualifier: I think it is potentially troubling when any organization goes into the public sphere promoting any aspect of God’s law without placing it in the context of the gospel. Unfortunately the way these things work we are usually dealing with slogans, soundbites, and 30 second TV ads which don’t lend themselves to rich or detailed communications. With the CMDA at least they are speaking within their area of expertise (although I don’t know how much dentistry or pathology has to do with embryonic stem cell research).

What I don’t want is Jerry Falwell holding a press conference on Tinky Winky just because he thinks he knows something about human sexuality and television. This just invites deserving ridicule. Note that the Rev. Jesse Jackson & The Rev. Al Sharpton also think they are experts on all kinds of things.

Actually, my logic was precisely, and clearly, the reverse: if we may legitimately appeal to the Bible outside the church regarding an issue arising in the civil kingdom—something that you have already granted—then why may we not make the same appeal within the church regarding that same issue arising in the civil kingdom, as a form of inculcating Christian living in the world?

To be clearer: if (A) the Christian physician is to be praised for the CMDA statement on embryonic stem cell research, which validly invokes the biblical teaching on the Imago Dei as one of its arguments, then (B) I assume a preacher may praise that same statement or line of argument as valid, and proclaim to the congregation as one implication of the biblical teaching on the Imago Dei that embryonic stem cell research is prohibited by that teaching.

Since you’ve granted (A), then I think (B) follows. And I would observe that this conclusion differs significantly from the claim embedded in the hermeneutic employed by some NL2K advocates and others, that the Bible governs life within the church, whereas unaided reason and natural law govern life outside the church. The conclusion of which is that preachers may confidently, yet carefully, proclaim the Bible’s relevance to issues arising in the civil kingdom, and thereby equip believers for Christian living in the world.

I agree fully that the Bible says things to/about the church and Christian conduct that are not specifically addressed to society at large (e.g., when you give, give generously).

As I explained elsewhere, the direction of my argument is not from church to world, but from world to church. That is, if the biblical argument of the CMDA is legitimately valid outside the church, it ought to be just as valid inside the church—as in: from the pulpit—as an application of the Bible to that issue.

Regarding the CMDA statement, I do think its statement and arguments are helpful to physicians and researchers in the field of medicine.

Though I am unfamiliar with “Tinky Winky,” I agree entirely with you about preachers, and churches, and religious bodies speaking in the name of Christianity about so many issues concerning which they lack competence (both in terms of ability and authority), the result of which is ridicule of the faith. Whether such mistakes happen on the right or left, from the mouths of so-called conservatives or liberals (I find all of these labels embarrassingly unhelpful), I am interested that within their fields, Christians are knowledgeable and careful-yet-confident in addressing biblical principles to their specific sphere.

NDK, it would behoove you to represent 2k accurately. God’s law covers a believer’s life wherever he goes. Every 2ker says that. No 2ker says the Bible only governs the church inside its walls (think church as organism, sure you can).

But to say that a Christian should not join the Masonic Lodge is not the same as telling the government to ban Masons. Why can’t you understand that simple point. A state may have very different norms for divorce than the church. Are you demanding that the state’s law conform to church norms? Why not if the Bible speaks to all of life?

Why any pastor would use a sermon to praise a physician is surely a curiosity to me. I thought Dutch Calvinists believed in exegetical preaching. What would the text be, “now let us praise medical men”? Plus, I thought the point of worship was to praise God.

To your first question: the issue is not needing CDMA to legitimate a biblical conviction within the church. Clearly, I am arguing for the legitimacy of preaching about an issue that has arisen in the civil kingdom. I am arguing that it is appropriate to preach the Bible’s teaching about embryonic stem cell research. Some NL2K advocates deny that the Bible is normative for matters/issues/spheres outside the church, and that preachers have no business applying the Bible to cultural activities per se in the civil kingdom.

To your confusion: If you agree that the Bible is legitimately invoked with reference to issues and activities arising in the civil kingdom, that is not a little “wow.” That’s a big “wow”!

Because now we can get back to Christians testifying to, appealing to, and applying the principles and teachings of God’s Word within the common realm in terms of medical ethics, economic ethics, military ethics, marital ethics, and . . . well, as wide as the world!

I know full well that no NL2K advocate now believes that the Bible governs only the church inside its walls, although that belief was not at all evident at the start of this discussion several years ago. But that is not the issue now. For it seems that some NL2K advocates agree that the Bible norms the cultural obedience of Christians—for example, with regard to ESCR.

When I have said that one version of the NL2K position and of religious secularism quarantine the Bible to the church parking lot, I have explicitly explained that phrase to mean that such a position denies that God’s Word is normative for cultural activity in the common realm—since it is declared that unaided reason and natural law provide adequate guidance and governance in the common realm.

The point at issue is whether the Bible governs cultural activity within the common realm, including medical activity, like ESCR. You have agreed that it does. That is important, I think.

NDK – One point I would make is that the kind of “issue oriented preaching” that you seem to be arguing for is much more palatable if it flows naturally from the text. For instance, my URC minister pretty much always is preaching through a book or doing Catechetical preaching. He really doesn’t do “topical sermons”. He may give a sermon related to baptism if we are doing baptisms or related to church discipline if someone is being excommunicated, but he doesn’t just preach on a topic because it is “relevant” to world events. When applications arise naturally from a text that is fine, but an outside agenda, no matter how allegedly important, shouldn’t be what’s driving preaching. Now you may say, that X evil going on in the world mandates that ministers give special attention to it (X being Nazis, abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, or whetever) but evil has always been and will always be in the world. We don’t just constantly react to evil as if we are playing a whack-a-mole game. We do what we do as the church regardless of what is going on in the world. Currently we do it in freedom, someday we may do it in hiding under threat of death. We just do what we do and keep on doing it regardless of the consequences — unshaken by the world.

NDK, here’s another wow. I have no trouble sitting down with a biologist who is working through the morality of some of her research on a host of issues. This is Christian morality in the lab. What you seem to advocate is a political implementation that would govern the lab. Hence the theocratic associations. It is one thing for a Christian to avoid certain professional activities because of biblical teaching. It is another for you to advocate the magistrate prescribing biblical morality for all citizens. Not to mention that your morality is hardly comprehensive. It largely covers sex. It doesn’t cover God’s honor — as in blasphemy and idolatry.

A preacher who talks about professional ethical matters invariably loses all the congregation — everyone who is not in medicine and generally everyone who is because the pastor doesn’t understand the wrinkles of the profession.

NDK, as I say, the Bible governs the lives of believers, wherever they are. If you want to run from that to the Bible governing all of cultural life, fine. Just let me know then how you square this with your apparent silence about the wickedness of the United States — a polity that gives freedom for all sorts of activity that does not follow Scripture. Can you believe that the United States actually tolerates practices that violate the first four commandments?

I do not know why you don’t see how your “comprehensive” outlook is remarkably selective and myopic.

I could not agree with you more. I would never argue for “issue oriented preaching,” as my homiletics students learned throughout the 26 years of my teaching. Topical sermons are the bane of much American preaching. I applaud the approach your pastor is taking—series preaching on Bible books, and catechetical preaching. That is precisely what the church needs. Then, as the text permits (something I’ve repeatedly stated, but occasionally omit saying, for the sake of brevity), the preacher concretizes the text to show its implications for whole life Christian cultural obedience.

Well, in terms of the CMDA statement on ESCR, I do believe that Christians in this field (researchers, physicians, etc.) ought to advocate for legislation, protocols, and standards that correspond to the implications of the biblical teaching of the Imago Dei for ESCR. To the extent they are able, Christian citizens ought to do the same. As a preacher, I’m not going to stipulate what such legislation, protocols, or standards will ultimately look like. Those Christians in the field are the experts who are called to employ their sanctified Christian wisdom in such advocacy.

However, I am not advocating that the preacher use the pulpit as a platform for ethics lectures. The pulpit is called to open the text of Scripture with a view to equipping all of God’s people for living in the world, for their cultural obedience. The concretization of many Scripture texts will not involve specific ethical issues, but rather address one’s Christian identity, one’s being in Christ, one’s character. Nevertheless, when the text permits, preachers need not shy away from making a point similar to the ones in the previous paragraph.

By the way, this biblical teaching of the Imago Dei also has implications for drone warfare, economic assistance, poverty relief, the meaning of work, the nature of retirement, and more. This is not to say that such subjects, by themselves, constitute legitimate “topics” for sermons. Never! But when the text permits, such concretization of the teaching on Imago Dei can be made with a “thus says the Lord” authority—requiring extreme caution, care, and pastorality in formulating that concretization.

Again, my point is very targeted: it involves acknowledging the authority of Scripture to provide moral principles and standards for the common realm, pertaining to issues that arise in various contexts of human cultural activity. The CMDA statement on ESCR, invoking the biblical teaching of the Imago Dei, is a clear example of what I am arguing for.

I understand that true Christian liberty obligates the preacher and the church to declare no more than what God has said in his Word. I get that. My quest has been the flip side: I am seeking to show that true Christian liberty obligates preachers, the church, and believers where appropriate, to declare no less that what God has said in his Word.

One larger question: To what degree does the church have a duty to advocate for the law of God in the public sphere vs. within the church (I guess that’s pretty much the whole debate). For example, if as a Christian I do not commit adultery, abort my unborn children, practice homosexuality, marry someone of the same sex, or do research on embryos — and everyone in my church does likewise — do we not send a message to the world that transcends us trying to force them to not commit adultery, not abort their unborn children, not practice homosexuality, not marry someone of the same sex, and not do research on embryos? Evil people will always practice evil deeds — it’s in their nature. Changing laws might restrain them, but at that point all we are talking about is utilitarianism in that there will less of this or that evil. The only way things really change is if men’s hearts are changed. Might not a better way of changing hearts just be doing what we do as Christians and letting that be a silent testimony to the world that there is a better way? As it stands now we have this constant culture war going on with both sides just getting hardened in their positions. Maybe we should surrender the culture war, watch the other side flounder, and see if some of them are humbled and go looking for better answers. When they do, the church will be there for them, testifying to the truth from a humble standpoint vs. a militant standpoint.

NDK, your narrow point — “acknowledging the authority of Scripture to provide moral principles and standards for the common realm, pertaining to issues that arise in various contexts of human cultural activity” — does very little to equip Christians to live in the world. The reason is that your narrow point ignores all sorts of complications — like the authority of legislators, the vocations of Christians, the sovereignty of spheres — all of the sorts of authority questions that are bound up with settling or practicing a moral imperative. As it stands, by insisting on morals, you may actually equip Christians to be self-righteous.

NDK, by the way, I find this admission by you poignant, to say the least: “I know full well that no NL2K advocate now believes that the Bible governs only the church inside its walls, although that belief was not at all evident at the start of this discussion several years ago.”

Do you mean that when five years ago you started a fifteen guhzillion part series on living in the world and critique of 2k you actually didn’t understand 2k (my email to you during that series, never responded to, to the contrary)? Don’t you think you need to understand something before you evaluate it? Did you ever think to ask a 2ker a direct question?

Actually, it is this grand. The preacher proclaims the gospel of Christ’s cosmic reconciling work, finished at Christ’s incarnation, obedience, cross, resurrection, and ascension; begun and nurtured in the church through the means of grace; demonstrated by and witnessed to in the world by Christ’s disciples; and eventually, by his power and grace, a reconciliation that will include the entire cosmos, culminating in his new heavens and new earth.

Preaching the biblical description of that entire constellation of realities will indeed motivate and guide God’s people 24/7/12/366

I agree with many points you raise. I am uninterested in ecclesiastical activism, only in Christian cultural obedience. Part of this obedience involves witnessing to biblical teaching within one’s sphere(s) of living. Let Christians, not the institutional church, advocate in the public realm, as much as possible.

I am very sympathetic with what you propose as “a silent testimony to the world that there is a better way.”

However—and this is an important point—the choice is not either one or the other. By this I mean that there are indeed some areas/issues where the silent testimony is all that God’s people can provide. This is certainly the case in parts of the world where the civil authority is overtly hostile to Christianity. And there may well come a time in our own society when that silent witness is the best, most sanctified choice. But in our generation, while there is freedom of speech, freedom to apply religion to areas of living within culture, we as Christians should not forego that opportunity. In other words, there is a time to be silent. And there is a time to speak.

This past January I taught a course in Kiev, Ukraine, on Christianity and Culture. In discussion with students, it became apparent that in Ukraine, if you refuse to work on Sunday, you simply wouldn’t have a job. Period. No option. This residue of the communist regime continues to present Christians with difficult choices. Far be it from me, as a Western, American Christian to presume to prescribe how, in their circumstances, the Fourth Commandment should be observed. But for us here in North America, benefiting as we do from the cultural heritage of Christianity, it seems to me that we Christians ought to seek to preserve the Lord’s Day for worship and fellowship as much as possible by advocating policies where all employees have one day a week free from work.

As a Christian I am called to seek the common good. This entails my wise advocacy, in terms of my own circumstances and calling, of policies and practices that enhance institutions, relationships, and objectives that serve the common good rather than tear it down.

With you, I know that the law cannot make a person good; I know that civil legislation relies on compulsion, and aims at mere outward conformity. Only the gospel changes the heart and produces inward love for the law of God. Nevertheless, the law of God is good for society, for culture, yes, for unbelievers, as a restrainer of sin. Again, I realize that only regenerated Christ-followers have a proper, gospel-created relationship to the law. But the civil use of the law, whereby it functions apart from the renewing grace of the gospel, is not nothing. It is very important for the well-being of society.

I am less interested in fighting than in bearing witness in the public square to the righteousness of God. I am less interested in winning any culture war or transforming any sector of society than in faithfully applying the principles of God’s Word to living in the world.

If this narrow point under discussion were the only consideration, you would be right, of course. But—rightly or not—it seems to have taken tremendous effort to obtain the acknowledgement that biblical principles obtain for Christians addressing issues in the common realm.

To be sure, how these biblical principles get applied requires, as I indicated, sanctified Christian wisdom—navigating all kinds of questions bound up with practicing a moral imperative.

Finally, I suppose any emphasis on obedience and on morals can induce Christians to be self-righteous, inside or outside the church. It all depends on context—and teaching believers to distinguish between the didactic and civil uses of the law of God.

No, that’s not at all what I mean. What I mean is that some advocates of NL2K have modified their claims.

Several years ago, I wrote about this problem in reviewing a book whose author explicitly claimed that in a certain sense, Scripture is not the norm for the common realm. This morphed, in other contexts, into the claim that the Bible governs the church, while unaided reason and natural law govern the common realm.

I understood, and understand, very well what was being claimed, and responded accordingly. And yes, I have indeed personally, privately, directly, and publicly asked someone who advocates NL2K several direct questions about this claim. The responses were hardly satisfying.

Dr K said:
“With you, I know that the law cannot make a person good; I know that civil legislation relies on compulsion, and aims at mere outward conformity. Only the gospel changes the heart and produces inward love for the law of God. Nevertheless, the law of God is good for society, for culture, yes, for unbelievers, as a restrainer of sin. Again, I realize that only regenerated Christ-followers have a proper, gospel-created relationship to the law. But the civil use of the law, whereby it functions apart from the renewing grace of the gospel, is not nothing. It is very important for the well-being of society.”

Isn’t this where theocracy peaks it’s head? Why would secular gov’t care about the law of God? On the one hand you claim there is nothing the pagan can do to better his lot but still you want secular gov’t to coerce it’s own kind. I still lack in seeing the coherence in your “comprehensive” system.

I understand theocracy to refer to direct rule by divine revelation and legislation. As far as I know, Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are the only examples of legitimate theocracy known to humanity (although other religions might claim to be theocratic, such as Islam).

If within a modern democratic society, Christians seek to protect unborn human life against ESCR because, among other reasons, it violates the biblical teaching about people being formed in the image of God, that is not “theocracy rearing its head.” If in the same context, Christians seek to protect human life from loss as the “collateral damage” of military weapons because, among other reasons, such loss violates the biblical teachings relating to just war and to the Imago Dei, that is not “theocracy rearing its head.”

In both cases, I am simply illustrating what is referred to as “the civil use of the law of God.”

Is this classic category describing the use of God’s law in the world no longer acceptable? We should not, I think, construe any attempt on the part of Christians to employ God’s Law in its civil use as imposing a theocracy. If anyone would like to read a competent, helpful, and Reformed explanation of this civil use of God’s Law, you will find it on pages 102-106 of Responsible Conduct: Principles of Christian Ethics, by J. Douma (available here).

Dr K,
I get the impression we’re playing “peek a boo” theocracy. The examples you cite are instances of personal harm but when the topic of homosexuality comes up you remove your hands and say “boo”. Of course we demand that civil goverment protect people from personal harm but you want to go beyond that into some public good theory. The 2nd Table talks about YOU not harming another particular person or persons. That’s the Natural Law. I don’t see any public good theory in the 2nd table.

In addition, if God is giving over some to the lusts of their hearts (Rom 1:24) what kind of idolatry is it for Christians to think they know better than God and employ gov’t coercion to stop that lust?

I gather from your comments that you view homosexual conduct as involving no personal harm. (I am not at all convinced of that.) If I’m rightly understanding you, then I think the same could/would be said about the private use of drugs, and even suicide.

I’m not seeking to articulate any public good theory, but simply trying to concretize the civil use of God’s Law for contemporary issues in society. Would you care to speak to that?

Incidentally, should Christians promote protocols and legislation that prevent or proscribe suicide?

The 2nd Table speaks specifically about one person using coercion on another person/s. If two adults consent together to engage in homosexual activity there is no coercion. Isn’t that what loving your neighbor is about- don’t use coercion on them?

Suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, etc… are results of a person not loving themselves. How do you coerce a person into loving theirself? Loving your neighbor as you love your self is twin pole. You can’t love your neighbor if you don’t love yourself. This is where the liberals get it wrong- they think you need to love your neighbor more than self.

I think the founding fathers of this country understood this basic natural law concept- limited coercion.

I think we may have covered this before. I’ve tried, throughout the recent discussion, to introduce other illustrations and examples than those involving sexuality.

Yours is a radically individualistic and libertarian interpretation of the Decalogue’s second table. The second table speaks not only of individuals harming individuals, but of any entity or body that steals, lies, kills unlawfully, and rejects proper authority. Am I to understand, on the basis of your argument, that Christians have no legitimate basis for opposing polygamy and polyandry among unbelievers in terms of applying God’s Law to public policy? Again, how do you reconcile this with the “civil use of God’s Law” that has been part of the Protestant Christian theological/ethical tradition?

I think it could be argued that the founding fathers clearly understood the biblical principle of relative sphere sovereignty, which entails limited authority and competence. (Which, by the way, is not to say the founding fathers were all Christians . . . Reformed Protestant churchgoers . . . tithers, etc.)

NDK, I’d actually say that no 2ker modified his views. It’s just that you have actually finally had some instruction on a world of Reformed thought outside Dutch neo-Calvinism. All the principle advocates of 2k affirm the Westminster Confession as revised by the American churches. Those standards teach that churches are not to meddle with civil affairs. Those standards also teach that the law pertains to Christians when they leave church.

If you had an imagination, you could have connected the dots and spared the readers of Christian Renewal an interminable series (has it ended?).

And yes, I’m still waiting for the reply to my email (which was sent mid way through the series).

I don’t mind be called radically individualistic because the basic concept of Christianity is that we live individually coram Deo. I don’t see gov’t in the 2nd Table just YOU.

However, taken together with Romans 13, I agree that good government has a duty to protect the individual and when it fails or oversteps it’s natural law duties we have a duty to resist that government. Reformed Protestantism began as a resistance to governments that overstepped it’s duties. This is where I and the NL2K (as you call them) part ways. They call for a servile submittance to gov’t even if it is defying natural law. It seems incoherent to claim to be for natural law and yet fail to defend it.

I also agree that the founding fathers understood relative sphere sovereignty. So your questions about whether I oppose such and such laws would depend on the sphere being discussed.

Of course you’d say that. I’d expect nothing else. But then, apparently you’re unable to discern the difference between saying, “The appropriateness of natural law as the moral standard for the civil kingdom becomes all the more important in light of the fact that, in a certain sense, Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom,” on the one hand, and admitting, as you have, that it is legitimate for Christians to appeal to the biblical teaching of the Imago Dei in recommending a position opposing ESCR. The difference between these two constitutes a modification of view.

But we’re not there yet. Because, you see, it is still being defended by some NL2K advocates that the Bible is the source of moral norms in the spiritual kingdom, whereas unaided reason and natural law are the source of moral norms in the common kingdom.

NDK, both are true. Welcome to 2k. By bordering on biblicism, you are the one who can’t see the value or propriety of natural law, which as VanDrunen has shown, would be inconceivable to even Kuyper and Bavinck.

NDK – I will say your nuanced take on these issues is much more appealing to me than that of Rev. McAtee, for instance. I could not live with him as my pastor. I could live with you as my pastor, however. I would rather have a pastor who is sympathetic to 2K, however, which I do. Fortunately this issue is not the only thing the church is about (far from it).

In practice, in the church, moderate 2K people and moderate Neocalvinists can get along fine. Rev. McAtee and Misty Irons probably can’t get along fine, though, but they are at the fringes of the movements. I would suggest that people drop the “R” from 2K as that is pretty unhelpful to dialogue. Hart, Van Drunen, and Horton are not “R”.

I think it’s obvious Dr. K, that you hurt Hart personally with your series in Christian Renewal. Perhaps you should think about whether or not you had a full understanding of 2K at that time for such a long series done without adequately interviewing Hart personally. I sense the debate between you two is more personal than is helpful and perhaps this could be diminished with some mutual humility and apologizing. I have my own principled, substantive debates with people, however, that are quite animated and I may be off base with my assessment.

Dr. Hart, I was mistaken in opining about your personal internal motivation or internal moral orientation. To allege embarrassment as either the motivation or implication of your intellectual argument was unfair and unkind, especially since it is preeminently our Lord Jesus who is able to determine whether, if at all, we are ashamed of him and his Word. So I regret having written that, and publicly seek your forgiveness.

Accordingly, I have revised the offending sentence to read: “. . . have challenged some essential and foundational arguments for pressing the unique claims of Jesus Christ upon modern human cultural activity” (available here), and have sent this correction to Christian Renewal.